Re: [boost] Re: boost.threads

From: Greg Colvin (greg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-09 13:23:40

From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_y..., "Greg Colvin" <greg_at_c...> wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > It seems a compiler for a "fast local stack" machine can simply note
> > which local variables have their address used and not keep them on the
> > fast stack.  Doesn't seem all that different from using registers for
> > locals on a machine with register windows.
> 
> That's quite different than what's asked here, though.  Specifically 
> note the following:
> 
> > > > The question is: is the local (unsharable) stack a viable implementation,

Yes.

> > > > and if so, can we ban sharing stack data to allow that implementation
> > > > without impacting programmers?

No.
 
> A case by case evaluation by the compiler to optimize usage by 
> placing certain data on this fast stack is quite different than 
> blankly saying all thread stack data must be non-sharable so that 
> they can be placed on such a stack.

My thinking is just that since a compiler can easily take
advantage of a fast local stack without banning shared stack
data, just as it does for registers, there is no compelling
need to inconvenience programmers.